Wright v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd
[2003] QCA 118
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Wright v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd[2003] QCA 118
- Add to List
Wright v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd[2003] QCA 118
Wright v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd[2003] QCA 118
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | (first plaintiff/respondent) PLANLEY PTY LTD ACN 064 736 581 (second plaintiff/respondent) v HAMILTON ISLAND ENTERPRISES LIMITED ACN 009 946 909 (defendant/appellant) ACN 055 389 725 PTY LTD (first plaintiff/first respondent) LOUIS PHERHAD (second plaintiff/second respondent) VIVIENNE PHERHAD (third plaintiff/third respondent) v HAMILTON ISLAND ENTERPRISES LIMITED ACN 009 946 909 (defendant/appellant) |
FILE NO/S: | SC No 8981 of 1996 SC No 8982 of 1996 |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | General Civil Appeal – Further Orders |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED ON: | Judgment delivered 14 February 2003 Further Orders delivered 21 March 2003 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 5 August 2002 |
JUDGES: | McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Mackenzie J Judgment of the Court |
FURTHER ORDERS: | 1. In Appeal No 8981 of 1996: Allow in part the appeal from the order of Mullins J of 15 November 2001 only to the extent of in para [3] deleting the words "but excluding" and substituting the words "and including"; and No order as to the costs of the appeal 2. In Appeal No 8982 of 1996: Allow in part the appeal from the order of Mullins J of 15 November 2001 only to the extent of in para [3] deleting the words "but excluding" and substituting the words "and including"; and No order as to the costs of the appeal |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – COSTS – APPEALS AS TO COSTS – DISCRETION - where respondents contend that the costs orders made at first instance should remain - where appellant seeks an order that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs Wright v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd; ACN 055 389 725 Pty Ltd v Hamilton Island Enterprises Ltd (No 2) [2001] QSC 424 |
COUNSEL: | P A Keane QC, with D Logan, for the appellant M D Hinson SC for the respondents |
SOLICITORS: | Gadens Lawyers for the appellant O'Shea Corser & Wadley for the respondents |
[1] THE COURT: The appellant seeks an order in each appeal to the effect that the respondents pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal to be assessed and an order that the respondents pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the hearing before Mullins J on 30 October 2001 to be assessed.
[2] The respondents in each appeal contend that the costs orders made at first instance should remain and the appellant should pay the respondents' costs of each appeal.
[3] In her reasons for judgment and subsequent orders delivered on 15 November 2001[1] Mullins J noted:
"Although the [appellant] has been successful in obtaining the discharge of the interlocutory injunction without a perpetual injunction being imposed, that possibility was raised by the [appellant] when the hearing on 30 October 2001 was imminent. The hearing on 30 October was substantially concerned with the additional matters in respect of which the [appellant] unsuccessfully sought further orders."[2]
[4] Her Honour made no order as to the costs of the hearing of 30 October 2001. The appellant in each action was successful in obtaining on appeal the orders it unsuccessfully argued for on 30 October 2001 and which took up the substantial part of that hearing. In those circumstances, the appellant should now have its costs to be assessed of the hearing of 30 October 2001.
[5] As to the costs of each appeal, the appellant was unsuccessful on the major question of estoppel; although the appellant was successful on the collateral contract issue, this had no practical benefit to the appellant, having lost its appeal against the finding of estoppel. On the other hand, the appellant was successful in obtaining the orders for declarations that it sought before Mullins J at the hearing on 30 October 2001; it seems that had the respondents agreed to those orders when first proposed by the appellant there may have been no appeal and no hearing of 30 October 2001. In those circumstances, there should be no order as to the costs of the appeal.
[6] Further orders:
In Appeal No 8981 of 1996:
1.Allow in part the appeal from the order of Mullins J of 15 November 2001 only to the extent of in para [3] deleting the words "but excluding" and substituting the words "and including".
2.No order as to the costs of the appeal.
In Appeal No 8982 of 1996:
1.Allow in part the appeal from the order of Mullins J of 15 November 2001 only to the extent of in para [3] deleting the words "but excluding" and substituting the words "and including".
2.No order as to the costs of the appeal.